Ethnonyms along the Silk Road as Recorded in the Sino-Mongol Bilingual Sources1

Ethnonyms along the Silk Road as Recorded in the Sino-Mongol Bilingual Sources

Apatóczky Ákos Bertalan

1

Introduction

Next to the ultimate source of the Secret History of the Mongols (SH) Si- no-barbarian bilingual glossaries also constitute important sources for the history of Inner-Asian languages as well as for the Chinese language itself. Furthermore, they may deepen our overall knowledge about the history of the ethnic groups the lan- guage of which they refer to. An interesting layer of the lexicon recorded in such compilations is the vocabulary denoting ethnonyms. Belonging to a special division of the linguistic data these names give invaluable information on the history of the ever-changing political situation of the steppe area from the Yuan to the Qing era.

Some ethnonyms seem to have evolved long before the emergence of a similarly named people known from historical records, some have survived long after the time when the underlying peoples had disappeared as political entities, yet other shifted from one ethnic group to another. In this paper, I attempt to give an over- view on the ethnonyms appearing in the most important bilingual Sino-Mongol glossaries: the Hua-Yi yiyu (Hy; ^華夷譯語 1389; 1407)², the Zhiyuan yiyu (Zyyy; aka.

Menggu yiyu ^{至元譯語/蒙古譯語}, 1282)³, the Yiyu (BLYY; aka. Beilu Yiyu ^{譯語/北虜譯語}

1 I owe special thanks to Béla Kempf for his suggestions during the writing of this paper.

2 Cf. Lewicki 1949, 1959, Mostaert 1977 and Kuribayashi 2003.

3 On the Tokyo cabinet library xylograph (Naikaku Bunko ^内閣文庫 no. 9866.4(3).366.4(2) cf. Lige- ti-Kara 1990, and Kara 1990.

its versions BLYY-By; PUL; HAS)⁴ of the Dengtan bijiu 登壇必究 1599,⁵ the late Ming Beilu kao (WBZh/2; aka. Dada yu ^韃靼語)⁶, the Yibu (LLSL; ^譯部上 and ^譯部下 chapters of the Lulongsai lüe ^盧龍塞略 1610)⁷ on both the Chinese and the Mongolian side. With the analysis of their change over roughly half a millennium, we may get a better understanding of how ethnonyms had their own different lives from that of the actual peoples denoted by these names. Below I review the ethnonyms appearing in the above sources arranging them in an alphabetic order. Some of them show up in multiple sources, others only once and personal names deriving from ethnonyms are also included in this paper.

2 Čaqān Malaġa[i] ‘White Hat (i.e. Muslim)’

This ethnonym is rarely found in the Sino-Mongol bilingual works, the WBZh/2 entry is the only known original occurrence, which was copied to the LLSL, too:

WBZh/2 huí zi chā-hàn m^ǎ-l^ǎ-y^{ǎ 回子 叉汗 馬喇啞} Ch. ‘Muslim’, Mong. Čaqān Malaġa[i] ‘Muslim (lit. white hat)’

LLSL 1.7b5 yī yuē ài/yì-hàn mă-lă-yă ^{一曰乂汗馬喇啞8} (expansion of the previous entry - ^囘囘 ‘Sartawul’; read chā ^叉 instead of ài/yì ^乂)⁹

Ordos tś᷾ag͔āā malag͔a᷾t᷾u͔ ‘Muslim’ (Mostaert 1968 p. 451).

The fact that this term is very rare and not present in other Old and Middle Mon- golian sources might reflect its specificity to the dialect(s)¹⁰ of the glossary preserved in the WBZh/2 text.

4 Cf. Apatóczky 2009 pp. 1–4

5 Also copied to the Wu bei zhi 武備志 (WBZh) as its first Sino-Mongolian glossary. See Mao Yuanyi 茅 元儀 (ed.), Wu bei zhi ^武備志 [Remarks on Military Preparations], (1621). Reprinted by Huashi chu- banshe 華世出版社, 22 vol., 10224 pp., Taipei 1984. Its partially censored Qing edition: National Central Library, Taipei, call no. 302.1.22268.

6 Its only extant versions are left in the WBZh (as its second Sino-Mongolian glossary=WBZh/2 marking its source as a no longer extant work called Jimen fang yu kao JFYK ^{薊門防御考} of which not much more is known) and in Pozdneev 1908. Cf. also Rykin 2016 pp. 149–151, 2018 pp. 318–319 and Shimunek 2013–2014 pp. 100–104.

7 Cf. Apatóczky 2016.

8 For the LLSL headwords characters taken into account in the reconstruction are set bold face (along with their respective transcription), whereas explanatory parts are left regular typeface. When no explanatory part is found, all characters are in regular type face.

9 Cf. Apatóczky 2009 p. 20.

10 On the multiple layers of the WBZh/1 text cf. Apatóczky 2009a and that of WBZh/2 text cf.

Shimunek 2013–2014 and Rykin 2016 and 2018.

3 J̌ aqudai ‘Northern Chinese (personal name)’

This personal name is composed of an ethnonym + a masculine suffix –Dai (the feminine counterpart being –ǰin). Its sole source in the Sino-Mongol glossaries is Zyyy.

Zyyy 65 hàn er xiāng-hū-d^ǎi ^{漢兒 相忽歹} Ch. hàn er ‘Chinese (male person)’ (in the Naikaku/Japanese xylograph, read zhā ^扎 instead of xiāng ^相), Mong. ǰaqudai

‘Northern Chinese’

SH ǰaqud(un) irgen (^金人) ‘all subject peoples of the Chinese Empire’ cf. de Rachewiltz 2004 p. 1033.; Rybatzki 2006 p. 285.

4 J̌ ürčet etc. ‘Jürchen’

The name of the famous ethnic group, members of which were the founders of the Jin (^金) Dynasty (1115–1234) is widely recorded in the Sino-Mongol glossaries.

4.1 J̌ürčet

In the Hy a very precise transcription is found supplemented with a diacritic «^惕» character denoting a final -t.

Hy 3:20b1 zhǔ-ér-chè-t ^主兒徹惕 glossed in Chinese as rǔzhí měi

女直 每 ‘Jürchen – all’, indicating clearly that the function of the plural marker was clear for the compiler.

4.2 J̌ürči

The different versions of BLYY list this name in two places, once as an ethnonym and once as an equivalent of a Chinese toponym. The first one is only occurring in the By text, and as it is also copied, although corrupted, to the BLYY, it gives a direct proof of the source of the LLSL.

BLYY/By 183 rǔzhí zhǔ-ér-chì ^{女直 主兒赤}Ch. ‘Jürchen’, Mong. ǰürči ‘id.’

BLYY 77 h^ǎixī zh^ǔ-ér-chì ^{海西 主兒赤} Ch. ‘Haixi (lit. West of the Sea; toponym), Mong. ǰürči ‘Jürchen’

LLSL 1.7b8 r^ǔ zhi yuē zh^ǔ-yi-chi ^{女直曰主夷赤} (read ér ^兒 instead of yí ^夷) Ch.

‘Jürchen’, Mong. ǰürči ‘id.’

The Chinese coinage is to be understood in a matrix of names used for Jürchens during the Ming. In this setup Haixi was used for the Jürchen territories belonging to Manchuria,¹¹ as opposed to Haidong ^海東 ‘the East of the Sea’ where Wild Jürchen ^野

人女真 or ^海東女真 lived, and to the Jianzhou Jürchens ^建州女真)’. In a proclamation in 1635 Abahai outlawed the use of the term and ordered to be substituted with

“Manchu” (cf. Gernet 1996 p. 466.; Elliott 2001 p. 71 and notes 111-115 p. 401).

4.3 J̌üšidei (also a personal name)

Another variant of Jürchen is preserved in this personal name with the front har- monic variant of the masculine suffix –DAi.

Zyyy I, О 64 r^ǔzhēn zh^ǔ-shí-d^ǎi ^{女真 主十歹} Ch. ‘Jürchen’, Mong. ǰüšidei (also a personal name)

SH J̌ürčet, SH J̌ürčedei, AT J̌ürčid, Oir. Zürči(d), WMong. ǰürči(d); cf. Rybatzki 2006 p.

317.

5 Kitat etc. ‘(Northern) Chinese people’

Although the ethnonym goes back to the Khitans of the Liao dynasty, in the sources discussed here the name always refers to the Chinese.

5.1 Kitat

In the Hy we find two different renderings of the name:

Hy 451 Kita[t] hàn rén qǐ-tǎ ^漢人乞塔 Ch. ‘Chinese’, Mong. Kita[t]

Hy 2:03a1 Kitat q^ǐ-t^ǎ-t ^乞塔惕 glossed as Hàn rén ^漢人 ‘Chinese’.

The BLYY data repeats the first Hy occurrence:

BLYY 185 hàn rén qǐ-tǎ漢人 乞塔 Ch. ‘Chinese people’

The Yibu chapter of the Lulongsai lüe copies the assumed original version of Hy 451 in which the diacritic character is present, although losing its distinctive visual fea- tures and written in normal size along with a few explanatory words:

11 To be distinguished from the territory what is now called Haixi Mongol and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. For an overview map cf. Atwood 2004 p. 409.

LLSL 1.7b10 hàn rén dōng yi yuē q^ǐ-t^ǎ-tì ^{漢人東夷曰乞塔惕} Ch. ‘Han people are called Kitat by the Eastern Barbarians’, hence Mong. Kitat ‘Han people’.

Although an open syllable ending for the word is not entirely impossible, however, the form in BLYY 185 and Hy 451 is simply the result of the omission of the diacritic

«^惕» character still present in Hy 2:03a1, the 1407 “B” version of Hy (cf. Kuribayashi 2003 p. i), and the form copied into LLSL 1.7b10, all these providing evidence for the assumed textual corruption in Hy 451. Even if the origin of the name goes back to a plural marked ethnonym, by the time of the compilation of the Hy the name Kitat solely referred to the sedentary northern Chinese population (i.e. non-Mongol or other steppe-dwellers) and while the term also covered the originally Khitan and Jürchen population of the Jin (with Jürchens also being treated Chinese in accord- ance with the four-caste system)¹², it did not mean Khitans per se. In the SH the word Kitat means ‘Jürchen’, clearly showing that in Middle Mongol the separation of the name from the Khitan ethnic group has already taken place. This corresponds to the well-known phenomenon when the name of the former rulers of a certain area is being transferred to the newer ones. Róna-Tas also speculates that ^乞塔 in BLYY 185 might reflect a singular Qita form of the Khitan ethnonym,¹³ however, this is un- doubtedly not the case as the data here means ‘Chinese’ and because it is a result of textual corruption from Kitat. It does not, however, weaken Róna-Tas’s general arguments that the original ethnonym might have had a tripartite system of singulars and plurals Qi(ї)ta: Qi(ї)tan(+Qi(ї)tai): Qi(ї)tas (singular: collective unit: plural).

5.2 Kitan

In the LLSL this other form is also listed from an unknown source:

LLSL 1.7b11 bĕi lŭ yuē qĭ-tàn ^{北虜曰起炭} (expansion of the previous entry) Ch. ‘the Northern caitiffs call them Khitan’, Mong. Kitan ‘Chinese’

SH Kitat/Kitad ‘Jürchen’; Hy Kitat/Kitad, AT Kitad, UighM qïtat, WMong. Kitad

‘(Northern) Chinese’

6 Ma

artai ‘Hungarian (Personal Name)’

This personal name follows the above-mentioned pattern and consist of an ethno- nym + masculine suffix –Dai. What gives it yet additional importance is that it was also born by a key historical figure of the Yuan dynasty and the Chief compiler of the Liaoshi:¹⁴

12 Cf. Atwood 2004 p. 94 (semuren).

13 Cf. Róna-Tas 2016 pp. 165–166.

14 Cf. also Ligeti 1979 p. 80 and Rybatzki 2006 p. 584.

Maǰardai (1285–1347) father of Toqto’a (Toghto, Tuotuo

脫 脫

“Minister in the late Yuan dynasty who attempted ambitious plans of financial and economic renovation” (Atwood 2004 p. 543).

The traditional analysing of the ethnonym Magyar sees it a compound of Magy (ethnonym < *MancA; cf. the ethnonym Mansi; and eventually <Indo-European

*manu-s ‘human being’) + Finno-Ugric *er ‘man’ (cf. EWUng pp. 923–924). Ró- na-Tas on onomastic grounds argued that the second syllable *Er is the ethnonym of a (not attested) Finno-Ugric group’ (Róna-Tas 1993 pp. 20–21) rather than ‘man’.

The front vocalic counterpart Megyer¹⁵, a tribal name of one of the Hungarian pre-conquest clans, is no exception in that regard. This theory has been seriously challenged by Janhunen who argued that Magyar is probably a Bulghar Turkic plural of magy- < *manca with the –r being a Turkic suffix coming from a hypothetic Pre-Proto-Turkic plural marker *–s (2018 pp. 143–144). Even if the idea of a pos- sible plural suffixation is accepted, Janhunen, however, makes no account how an epenthetic vowel in the –r suffixed form could have been exempted from vowel harmony, as all attested forms of the early sources feature a non-harmonic Magyer /maɟer~maʤer/ form (Janhunen examines only the later Magyar and Megyer forms), typical in compounds and abnormal in suffixed forms. A detailed analysis of the history of the scholarly etymologies along with a work hypothesis of a possible Turkic origin (<Bandžer ‘main/central place’) was presented by Berta (2001 pp.

21–25).

7 Mongqol etc. ‘Mongol’

Just like the previous one this ethnonym has a literature of the size of a library itself, therefore a detailed analysis will not be presented here, and only the attested oc- currences will be listed. For a relatively recent and concise overview on this eth- nonym cf. Rykin 2014 (especially pp. 252–257).

7.1 Mongqol

The Hy contains a “normal” Middle Mongol variant, with the already mentioned accurate transcription containing a diacritic «^丁» character for the final -l.

Hy 452 dádá máng-huō-l 達達 忙豁^丁 Ch. ‘Tartar’, Mong. Mongqol ‘Mongol’

15 The front vocalic form was the result of the Turkic environment where, according to Róna-Tas the last-syllable-stressed pronunciation facilitated the maǰer>meǰer assimilation, analogous to the develop- ment of the Khazar ethnonym (Caesar>kesar>Qasar) (Róna-Tas 1993 p. 22).

7.2 Mongġol

This variant is found at three different places in the BLYY and it had also been copied into the LLSL:

BLYY 182 dádá mǎng-guān-ér 韃靼 莽官兒 Ch. ‘Tartar’, Mong. Mongġol ‘Mongol’

BLYY 70 yí dì m^ǎng-guān-ér gá-zhā-lá ^{夷地 莽官兒噶扎剌} Ch. ‘land of the barbarians’, Mong. Mongġol ġaǰar(a) ‘Mongol territories’ (-a maybe locative cf. BLYY 43. ġaǰar) LLSL 1.6a24 fan yi di yuē m^ǎng-guān-er ge-zhā-la 凢夷地曰莽官兒葛札剌 (read gá

噶 instead of gé ^葛) Ch. ‘whereas the land of the barbarians is called’, Mong. see above BLYY 76 (only in the By version) běilǔ yě-kè mǎng-guān-ér 北虜 野克莽官兒 Ch.

‘Toponym (lit. ‘[the territory of the] northern slaves’)’, Mong. yeke Mongġol ‘Great Mongol’

LLSL 1.6a25 lǔ di yuē yě-ke mǎng-guān-er ^{虜地曰野克官兒} Ch. ‘(toponym) lit.: northern slaves’, Mong. see above

7.3 Mongγu[l]dai (Also a Personal Name)

The usual ethnonym + masculine suffix –Dai pattern is found in Zyyy:

Zyyy I, O 62 dádá méng-gǔ-dǎi ^{達達 蒙古歹} Ch. ‘Tatar’, Mong. Mongγu[l]dai

‘Mongol’ (also a personal name)

SH Moŋqol; Moŋqolǰin (fem.); cf. Rybatzki 2006 p. 605.

8 Nanggias etc. ‘The Southern Chinese’

8.1 Nanggias

The generic term for the Southern Chinese Nanngias (<Chin. nan jia ^南家 ‘Southern family, southern people’; Cf. Rybatzki 2006 p. 638: “Chin. nan-chia ‘Süd-Chinesen (~

Sung-Dynastie; zuerst von den Jurchen gebrauchte Bezeichnung)”) is present in Hy without Chinese glossing:

Hy 3:19b nǎng-jiā-sī ^曩加思 Mong. Nanggias ‘The Southern Chinese’

8.2 Nanggiyadai (also a personal name)

The form which became a surname is a regular formation with –Dai and although the characters are misplaced and difficult to read their reading¹⁶ by Ligeti–Kara (1990 p. 263) is probable:

16 Also supported by the analogy of Mongγu[l]dai.

Zyyy 66 (mánzi jiā-nang?-d^ǎi) ^{蛮子 家…歹} Ch. ‘The Southern Chinese’, Mong.

Nanggiyadai ‘id. (also a personal name)’

Precl. Mong. (Arγun’s letter 1289, cf. Mostaert-Cleaves 1969 and Ligeti 1972 cited by Kara 1990 p. 311) Nanggiyas; Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo, vol. II, no. 288 (pp.

781-783), Mongatai; UighM Nangkiya (Ligeti 1966 p. 184); WMong. Nanggiyad, Nanggiyas; cf. Rybatzki 2006 p. 638.

9 Ongliu[t] ‘The Ongniγud/Ongni’ud Tribe’

The Taining-guard was one of the three “Uriyangkhan” guards during the Ming. “The Ming put two surrendered princes (Mongolian ong from Chinese wang) from the line of Chinggis Khan’s brothers over the Taining Guard; its people were called the Ongni’ud (“the ones with ongs/princes”).” Atwood 2004: 535

Their name was included in the BLYY and then copied into the LLSL vocabulary.

BLYY 71 tàiníng wèi wǎng-liú ^{泰寧衛 往流} Ch. ‘Taining wei (toponym, one of the Uriyangkhan territories at Šira müren)’ Mong. Ongliu[t]

LLSL 1.6a18 tai ning wei yuē w^ǎng-liu ^{泰寧衛曰往流} Ch., Mong. see above AT Ongliγud, Khal. Ognuud, WMong. Ongniγud/Ongliγud

10 Oyirat etc. ‘Oirats’

The variants of the Oirat ethnonym are relatively underrepresented in the Si- no-Mongol glossaries. In the Hy it is glossed in Chinese only as “^一種人名” ‘a kind of personal name’, showing that by the time of their mention the political significance of Oirats was not at its climax, it does not mean, of course, that the Mongolian name would have meant a personal name only.

10.1 Oyirat

Hy 3:11b wò-yì-rat ^{斡亦舌剌惕} Ch. ‘Oirat (personal name)’, Mong. Oyirat 10.2 Oyr[d]

By the time of the compilation of the LLSL this situation has changed as it is shown by one of the very few original headwords (only 9 out of the 1400+ headwords) of the LLSL (cf. Apatóczky 2016b p. 30f15 and 33):

LLSL 1.7b3 bĕi chēng shŭ yí yuē wŏ-yún-ér ^{北稱屬夷曰我勻兒} Ch. ‘in the North barbarians are called Oyr[d]’ ‘subordinate barbarians’ Mong. Oyr[d] ‘the Oirats’

About the stormy history of the etymology attempts of this famous ethnonym cf.

Kempf 2010. He gives a by and large plausible etymology claiming that the origin of the name is Turkic *ōy ‘a word for a colour of a horse’s coat’ with the suffixes -gir (for colours) and -(A)n (for collective, non-productive in Old Turkic) and the recon- structed original form is *oygiran (Kempf 2010 p. 192).

SH Oyirat, AT Oyirad

11 Ö

[d] ‘The Ö

iyed/Ü

iyed Tribe’

In Atwood’s definition the Ö^ǰiyed was the Mongolized Tungusic group on which the Fuyu guard was based in the Ming dynasty (cf. Atwood 2004 p. 535), while Miyawaki describes a broader meaning “Öǰiyed was the generic name in Mongolian for the so-called Three Uriyangkhan Garrisons east of the Khingan Mountains” (Miyawaki 1997; cf. also Atwood 2004 p. 308).

The only Sino-Mongol glossary that mentions this ethnonym is the BLYY and its whole entry was also copied to the LLSL.

BLYY 72 Ch. fú-yú-wèi wǒ-zhe ^{福餘衛 我着} Ch. ‘toponym, name of a territory in today’s Heilongjiang province (after the sixteenth century became a part of Khorchin land. The Fuyu-guard (one of the three “Uriyangkhan” guards during the Ming). Modern Qiqihar.’ Mong. Öǰȫ[d] ‘The Öǰiyed tribe’

LLSL 1.6a19 fúyú wèi yuē w^ǒ-zhe ^{福餘衛曰我着} Ch., Mong. see above.

12 Sarta’ul etc. ‘Muslim; Uighur; Collective Ethnonym and Toponym for Khwarezm; Merchant (City-Dweller)’

12.1 Sarta’ul

The Sarta’ul etc. ethnonym has a long record in Inner-Asian sources, and it made its way to the major Sino-Mongol glossaries, too. A “standard” form is found in the Hy:

Hy 454 huíhuí sā-er-tǎ-wēn 囬囬 撒兒塔溫 Chin. ‘Muslim (land) etc.’, Mong. Sarta’ul

‘id.’

12.2 Sartawul

Unlike in the Hy the BLYY variant shows the presence of the intervocalic -w-:

BLYY 181 huíhuí sā-ér-t^ǎo-wù-ér ^{囬囬撒兒討兀兒} Ch. ‘Muslim (land) etc.’, Mong.

Sartawul ‘id.’

The BLYY entry was copied to the LLSL, but it is difficult to establish if the dif- ferent rendering in the LLSL is a result of textual corruption or contrariwise it is an emended form, or else it represents an original form that the extant BLYY versions ceased to have.

LLSL 1.7b4 tōng chēng hui-hui yuē sā-er-t^ǎ-wu-le ^{通稱囘囘曰撒兒塔兀勒} Ch.

‘Muslims are generally called Sartawul’, Mong. Sartawul ‘Muslim (land) etc.’

12.3 Sartaqčin

Another occurrence in the Hy features the ethnonym with a nomen actoris suffix (used also to form ethnonyms and called also agentive participle, cf. Janhunen 2003 p. 77) –Qčin added, glossed in Chinese as^囬囬每 ‘Muslims’.

Hy 2:24b2 sā-er-tǎ-q-chén ^{撒兒塔黑臣} Mong. Sartaqčin ‘id.’

12.4 Sarda[q]dai (also a personal name)

The form in the Zyyy is a personal name consisting of the ethnonym and the mas- culine suffix –Dai.

Zyyy I, О 63 huíhui sā-l^ǐ-dā-d^ǎi 回回 撒里荅歹 Ch. ‘Muslim’ Mong. Sarda[q]dai ‘id.

(also a personal name)’.

SH Sarta’ul, MA Sarta’ūl, AT Sartaγul, RH Sartaul, Khal. Sartuul ‘Khalkha Mongols living in Buryatia’, WMong. Sartaγul. Turkic Yugur Sart ‘Muslim Hui; (Modern) Uighur’, Mongolic Yugur Salt^huur (metathesized from Sartuul), cf. Nugteren–Roos 2003 p. 135.

Sanskrit sārtha^ḥ ‘Caravan’ and sārthavāha- ‘Caravan leader, merchant’ (cf. Mayrhofer 1964 pp. 461-462), Old Turkic, Uighur sart ‘id.’. (cf. Clauson: “Sanskrit sarṭha

‘merchant’, prob. via Sogdian; it retained this meaning until XI but in the medieval period came to mean ‘town dweller’ as opposed to ‘nomad’, and more specifically ‘an Iranian’, as opposed to ‘a Turk’”; Clauson 1972 p. 846); cf. also Rybatzki 2006 pp.

716–717.

13 Solongġa ‘Korea’

The name of Korea in Mongolian, according to Vovin, goes back to the Old Korean name of the Silla Kingdom, and especially a variant written as ^斯蘆 Selo (the Early Middle Chinese form cited by Vovin: sje luo, cf. Baxter-Sagart 2014 sje lu, Pulleyblank 1991 si^ə̌/si l^ᵻ̇ə̌ and Schuessler 2009 Middle Chinese sje ljwo) (Vovin 2013 p. 203), from which the Mongolian form would have formed by an assimilation of the first syllable

vowel to that of the second syllable. The Middle Mongol data of the BLYY (also copied to the LLSL) shows an already assimilated form. What makes it still rare among Middle Mongol occurrences is that here we read a singular form, just like in the Altan Tobči and in the Sino-Jürchen vocabulary:

BLYY 184 gāolì suǒ-lóng-gé 高麗 瑣瓏革 Ch. ‘Korea’ Mong. Solongġa ‘id.’

LLSL 1.7b9 gāo li yuē su^ǒ-long-ge ^{高麗曰瑣瓏革} Ch., Mong. see above

SH Solongqas, AT Solongγas, Solongγaud, Solongγud, Solongγa RY sulo’o (but cf. Kara 1991 p. 156 “read soloγo”), Dag. solgui, Bur. Solongos (!), WMong. Solongγos

14 Qara Töböt ‘The Territory of Tibet Bordering China’

The only occurrence of this ethnonym in the Sino-Mongol glossaries is in the Hy, and even that is lacking a Chinese glossing.

Hy 3:01a4 hā-ra tuō-bó-t ^{哈舌剌脫伯惕} Mong. Qara Töböt ‘toponym’

Probably the first Western author who wrote about this ethnonym was Klaproth in his Asia polyglotta (1823 p. 345): “Die Chinesen nennen Tübet gewöhnlich Ši-zaņ, und den zunächst an China gränzenden Theil U-Ši-Zaņ oder das schwarze Ši-zaņ, es stimmt diese Benennung mit der Mongolischen Chara-Tübet, Schwarz Tübet, überein.”

Pelliot adds that “The Mongolian author of Jigs-med nam-mkha (1819) says that Chinggis subdued the nations of five colours (…) the black [were the] Tibetans” (Pelliot 1963: no 230.; cf.

also Bano 2001 p. 263 Kara-Tibet ‘Ladakh’).

Nugteren and Roos mention that Mannerheim during his visit to the Yugurs in 1907 noticed that Chinese call Tangutans (i.e. Tibetans) Hei fanzi ^黑番子 ‘Black barbarians’ in opposition to Huang fanzi ^黃番子 ‘Yellow barbarians; the Yellow Yugurs’, and it seems that other travellers’ accounts are agreeing in the sense that black colour in the exonym refers to Tibetans when it serves as a means of distin- guishing of two similarly named ethnic groups (Nugteren – Roos 2003 p. 134).

15 Uriangqan etc. ‘The Uriyangkhan People’

15.1 Uriangqan

The earliest mention of this ethnonym is in the meticulous transcription of the Hy and glossed in Chinese as “^一種人名” ‘a kind of personal name’.

Hy 3:05a wù-riang-qan

兀舌良中罕

15.2 Uriang[γ]an

By the time of the compilation of BLYY the name gained more prominence and was attached a specific administrative meaning.

BLYY 73 duǒyán wèi wǔ-liǎng-àn 朶顏衛 五兩案 Ch. ‘the territory of the Döyin-guard (the real Uriyangkhan, one of the three “Uriyangkhan” guards during the Ming);

toponym’ Mong. Uriang[γ]an ‘id.’

The entry was copied to the LLSL in its entirety:

LLSL 1.6a20 du^ǒ yan wei yuē w^ǔ-li^ǎng-an ^{朶顏衛曰五兩案} Ch., Mong. see above SH Uriangqadai (masc.)/Uriangqaǰin (fem.), AT Uriyangqai, WMong. Uriyangqai

16 Yeke Min[gγ]an ‘the Great Mingans; i.e. the Manchurian Öölöts or Mannai Öölöt (Ööld)’

The only Sino-Mongol glossary that contains this ethnonym is the BLYY.

BLYY 74 dà yī qiān yě-kè mín-àn (大壹千 野克民案) Ch. ‘toponym (verbatim from Mong.)’. Cf. Janhunen 2003 p. 182; Todaeva 1985 pp. 87–91

16.1 Üčüken Min[gγ]an ‘the Little Mingans’

Just like in the case of the previous name, this one is also only found in the BLYY.

BLYY 75 xiǎo yī qiān wǔ-chū-zhǐ mín-àn 小壹千 五出指民案 Ch. ‘toponym (verbatim from Mong.)’ (read kèn

掯

指

17 Closing Remarks

Overwhelming majority of the presence of various ethnonyms in the glossaries are determined by geographical closeness (exceptions due to historical reasons do exist, however).

When there were no corresponding ethnonyms present in Chinese the compilers used either the Chinese toponyms or verbatim translations and sometimes tran- scriptions.

Variants of the latter type are rarely used (e.g. no Menggu ‘Mongol’ or the like) and are limited to smaller groups without established Chinese names or are older loans.

This does not mean that less known but in the cited works frequently mentioned ethnonyms would not have made their way into the Chinese nomenclature (like Oyirat; Uriangqan etc.).

Most of the –Dai suffixed names in Hy and Zyyy could also be used for both personal names and ethnonyms.

There seem to exist no traces of the old Mongolian caste system of 1. Mongols;

2. Semus (i.e., roughly put, non-Mongol and non-Chinese Central Asians); 3. Han people; 4. Southern Chinese; a rather arbitrary administrative categorizing of ethnic groups used by the Yuan to provide grounds to the social isolation of the subject nations and secure an artificial system of advantage for the Mongols. Although forms like Nanggias do correspond to this scheme, the system of social and political differentiation and segregation had long been left behind (and replaced by others) and the terms evolved to “normal” ethnonyms, even if used, occasionally, in de- rogatory contexts.

Table 1: Chart of the features of the discussed ethnonyms and personal names

Sigla

AT Altan Tobči (according to Vietze – Lubsang 1992)

BLYY The Yiyu/Beilu yiyu 譯 語 / 北 虜 譯 語/of the Dengtan bijiu ^{登 壇 必 究} (BLYY-By; PUL; HAS) 1599 (according to Apatóczky 2009)

Zyyy Zhiyuan yiyu/Menggu yiyu ^{至元譯語/蒙古譯語} (Zyyy) 1282 (Naikaku Bunko kanseki bunrui mokuroku ^{内閣文庫漢籍分類目錄}no. 9866.4(3).366.42 [To- kyo cabinet library catalogue], Tokyo, 1956; according to Ligeti–Kara 1990 and Kara 1990)

Ch. the Chinese headword; Chinese

Hy Hua-Yi yiyu ^華夷譯語 1389; 1407 (According to Kuribayashi 2003) Khal. Khalkha (Kara 1998; Lessing 1960 etc.)

LLSL The Yi bu ^譯部 (上 and

下 chapters) of the Lulongsai lüe

EWUng Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen MA MA Muqaddimat al-ādāb (Bao 2002, Poppe 1938) RH The Rasûlid Hexaglot (according to Golden 2000) Mong. the reconstructed Mongolian word; Mongolian RY Ruzhen yiyu (according to Kane 1989)

SH The Secret history of the Mongols (according to de Rachewiltz 2004) UighM Uighur of Ming (according to Ligeti 1966)

WBZh/ 2Beilu kao ^北虜考 and Beilu yiyu ^北虜譯語 (aka. Dada yu ^韃靼語) of the Wu Bei Zhi ^武備志 (WBZh1/ WBZh2) 1621 Mao Yuanyi ^茅元儀 (ed.), Wu bei zhi

武備志 [Remarks on Military Preparations], (1621). Reprinted by Huashi chubanshe ^{華世出版社}, 22 vol., 10224 pp., Taipei 1984. Its partially censored Qing edition: National Central Library, Taipei, call no. 302.1.22268.

WMong. Written Mongolian (according to Lessing 1960 etc.)

Secondary Sources

Apatóczky, Ákos Bertalan: ‘Dialectal traces in Beilu yiyu’. Rybatzki (et al. ed.): The Early Mongols. Studies in honor of Igor de Rachewiltz on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 173. Bloomington, Indiana University Publications, 2009a, pp. 9–20.

Apatóczky, Ákos Bertalan: Yiyu. An indexed critical edition of a 16^th century Sino-Mongolian glossary. Global Oriental Publishers, Folkestone, 2009b.

Apatóczky, Ákos Bertalan: The “Translation” Chapter of the Late Ming Lulongsai lüe. Brill.

Leiden, 2016.

Apatóczky, Ákos Bertalan: ‘The Late Ming Chinese Lulongsai lüe (^盧龍塞略) and the Peculiarities of the Reconstruction of its “Translation” Chapter’. In: Rocznik Orientalistyczny, Vol. 68 (2.), 2015, pp. 24–34.

Atwood, Christopher P.: Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. Indiana, 2004.

Bano, Majida: ‘Aurangzeb’s embassy and letter to Subhan Quli, khan of Bukhara, 1684’. In: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 62. 2001. pp. 263–66.

Bao, Zhaolu ^保朝鲁: Mukadimate Mengguyu cidian ^{穆卡迪玛特蒙古语词典} [The Muqaddimat Mongol dictionary]. Kökeqota, 2002.

Baxter, William H. – Sagart, Laurent: Old Chinese reconstruction, online version 1.1 (20 September 2014).

Benkő, Loránd (et al. eds.): Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen. I.-II. Budapest, 1993.

Berta, Árpád: ‘Magyar törzsek és törzsnevek’. In: Döbör, András (ed.) Professoribus salutem. Szeged, 2001. pp. 17–28.

Clauson, Sir Gerard: An Etimological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford, 1972.

Elliott, Mark C.: The Manchu Way. The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford University Press, 2001.

Gernet, Jacques: A History of Chinese Civilization. Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge, 1996.

Golden, Peter B.: The King’s Dictionary. The Rasûlid Hexaglot: Fourteenth Century Vocabularies in Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Greek, Armenian and Mongol. Brill, Leiden, 2000.

Janhunen, Juha (ed.): The Mongolic Languages. Routledge, 2003.

Kane, Daniel: The Sino-Jurchen Vocabulary of the Bureau of Interpreters. Uralic and Altaic Series vol. 153. Bloomington, Indiana University Publications, 1989.

Kara, György: ‘Zhiyuan Yiyu. Index alphabetique des mots mongols’. In: Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Vol. 44, No. (3) 1990. pp. 279–344.

Kara, György: Jurchin Notes (review of Kane, D.: The Sino-Jurchen vocabulary of the Bureau of Interpreters). In: Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.

Vol. 45 (1) 1991. pp. 149–158.

Kara, György: Mongol-magyar szótár. [Mongol-Hungarian Dictionary]. Terebess, Budapest, 1998.

Kempf, Béla: Ethnonyms and etymology - The case of Oyrat and beyond. In:

Ural-altaische Jahrbücher. Vol. 24. 2010-2011. pp. 189–204.

Klaproth, Julius: Asia polyglotta. Paris, 1823.

Kuribayashi, Hitoshi, Word- and Suffix-Index to Hua-yi Yi-yu based on the Romanized Transcription of L. Ligeti, Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University Monograph series No. 10, Sendai, 2003.

Lessing, Ferdinand Dietrich: Mongolian-English Dictionary. University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1960.

Lewicki, Marian: La langue mongole des transcriptions chinoises du XIVe siecle. Le Houa-yi yi-yu de 1389. Travaux de la Societe des Sciences et des lettres de Wroclaw, Seria A, Nr. 29. Wrocław, 1949.

Lewicki, Marian: La langue mongole des transcriptions chinoises du XIVe siecle. Le Houa-yi yi-yu de 1389. II. Vocabulaire-index. Travaux de la Societe des Sciences et des lettres de Wroclaw, Seria A, Nr. 60. Wrocław, 1959.

Ligeti, Louis: ‘Un vocabulaire sino-ouigour des Ming. Le Kao-Tch’ang-Kouan yi-chou du bureau des traducteurs’ in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Vol. 19 (2). 1966, pp. 117-199 and Vol. 19 (3). 1966, pp. 257–316.

Ligeti, Louis: Monuments preclassiques 1. (Monumenta Linguae Mongolicae Collecta 2 and Indices Verborum Linguae Mongolicae Monumentis Traditorum 2), Budapest, 1972.

Ligeti, Lajos: A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai és ami körülöttük van. 2. Schütz Ödön (ed.).

Budapest, 1979.

Ligeti, Louis: ‘Un vocabulaire sino-ouigour des Ming: le Kao-tch’ang-kouan yi-chou du Bureau des traducteurs’. In: Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.

Vol. 19 (2) 1966. pp. 117–199.

Ligeti, Louis – Kara, György: ‘Un vocabulaire sino-mongol des Yuan le Tche-yuan yi-yu’. In: Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Vol. 44 (3) 1990. pp.

259–277.

Mayrhofer, Manfred: Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. A Concise Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary. Bd 3: Y-H. Nachträge und Berichtigungen. Heidelberg, 1964.

Miyawaki, Junko: ‘The Birth of the Oyirad Khanship’. In: Central Asiatic Journal 41 (1) 1997. pp. 38–75.

Mostaert, Antoine: Dictionnaire Ordos. Johnson Reprint Corporation. 1968.

Mostaert, Antoine: Le materiel mongol du Houa I I Iu ^華夷譯語 de Houng-ou (1389). Ed. by Rachewiltz, Igor de (–Schonbaum, Anthony.), Melanges chinois et bouddhiques XVIII, 1977.

Mostaert, Antoine–Cleaves, Francis Woodman: Manual of Mongolian Astrology and Divination. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, Scripta Mongolica, 1969.

Nugteren, Hans–Roos, Marti: Common Vocabulary of the Western and Eastern Yugur Languages. The Ethnonyms. In: Rocznik Orientalistyczny, Vol. 56 (1). 2003.

pp. 133–143.

Pelliot, Paul: Notes on Marco Polo. II. Paris, 1963.

Poppe, Nicholas: Mongol’skii slovar’ Mukaddimat al-Adab. I-II-III. Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Moscow-Leningrad, 1938.

Pozdneev, A. M.: Lekcii po istorii mongol’skoj literatury. Vol. 3. Vladivostok, 1908.

Pulleyblank, Edwin, G.: Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver, University of British Columbia, 1991.

Rachewiltz, Igor de: The Secret History of the Mongols. A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century. Brill. Leiden, 2004.

Róna-Tas, András: A honfoglalás kori magyarság. (Inaugural speech before the Hungarian Academy of Sciences). Értekezések, emlékezések 131. Budapest, 1993.

Róna-Tas, András: ‘Remarks on the ethnonym Khitan’. In: Turkic Languages, Vol. 20.

pp. 157–169.

Rybatzki, Volker: Die Personennamen und Titel der Mittelmongolischen Dokumente. Helsinki, 2006

Rykin, Pavel: ‘Etničeskaja identičnost’ srednevekovyx mongolov kak političeskij konstrukt: opyt analiza istočnikov’. In: Pavlinskaja, L. R. (ed.): Sibir’ v kontekste russkoj modeli kolonizacii (XVII–načalo XX v.). Sankt-Peterburg, 2014, pp.

248–294.

Rykin, Pavel: ‘The Sino-Mongolian Glossary Dada yu/Beilu yiyu from the Ming Period and the Problem of its Dating.’ In: Johannes Reckel (ed.) Central Asian Sources and Central Asian Research. Selected Proceedings from the International Symposium

“Central Asian Sources and Central Asian Research, October 23rd –26th, 2014 at Göttingen State and University Library. Göttinger Bibliotheksschriften, Volume 39.

2016. pp. 147–164.

Rykin, Pavel: ‘Reflexes of the *VgV and *VxV Groups in the Mongol Vocabulary of the Sino-Mongol Glossary Dada yu/Beilu yiyu (Late 16th–Early 17th Cent.).’

In: Á. B. Apatóczky, C. P. Atwood, and B. Kempf (eds.): Philology of the Grasslands:

Essays in Mongolic, Turkic, and Tungusic Studies. (Languages of Asia; Vol. 17.) Brill.

Leiden, 2018. pp. 308–330.

Schuessler, Axel: Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese. A Companion to Grammata Serica Recensa. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, 2009.

Shimunek, Andrew: “The Phonology and Lexicon of Early Modern Mongolian and Late Southern Middle Mongol as Documented in a 17th century Ming

Chinese-Mongolian Dictionary.” Ming Qing Yanjiu 18. 2013-14. pp. 97–130.

Todaeva, B.H.: Yazyk mongolov vnutrennei Mongolii. Moscow, 1985.

Vietze, Hans-Peter – Lubsang, Gendeng: Altan Tobči. Eine mongolische Chronik des XVII. Jahrhunderts von Blo Bzan· bstan ’jin. Text und Index. Tokyo, 1992.

Vovin, Alexander: ‘The Mongolian Names for ‘Korea’ and ‘Korean’ and Their Significance for the History of the Korean Language’. In: Sohn, Sung-Ock et al.

(eds.) Studies in Korean Linguistics and Language Pedagogy. Festschrift for Ho-min Sohn.

Korea University Press, 2013.